Finance Bill 2010-11

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the contribution of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of 6 July 2010,  Official Report, column 205, on the Finance Bill, what the statistical source was of the forecast in respect of further convergence.

Danny Alexander: Convergence is a mathematical property of the Barnett formula exhibited under certain conditions, particularly when departmental spending is growing. Table 2.3 in the Budget sets out falling implied DEL totals over the course of the SR period.

Income Tax: Tax Rates and Bands

Chuka Umunna: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people not liable to pay tax at the 50 pence higher rate subject to marginal deduction rates of over  (a) 60,  (b) 70,  (c) 80 and  (d) 90 per cent. in (i) (A) 2011 and (B) 2012-13 under the proposals in the June 2010 budget and (ii) (1) 2011-12 and (2) 2012-13 under the proposals in the March 2010 budget.

David Gauke: Annex A of the June 2010 Budget provides estimates of the numbers of families subject to marginal deduction rates (MDR) of over 60, 70, 80, 90% in 2010-11 and 2011-12 under proposals in the March 2010 and June 2010 Budgets. The footnote to this table states that rates are estimated for families in receipt of income-related benefits or tax credits, and hence those facing a 50% income tax rate are not included. Consistent with previous Budgets, MDR estimates have set out for the forthcoming tax year only.

Insurance: Construction

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints the  (a) Financial Services Authority and  (b) Financial Ombudsman Service has received on the Federation of Master Builders Masterbond warranty scheme in each of the last 10 years.

Mark Hoban: holding answer 22 June 2010
	Both the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) are operationally independent of Government.
	Financial Services Authority does not investigate complaints about firms from individual consumers, that is role of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
	Every six months, the FOS publishes data on individual financial businesses where it has received at least 30 new cases and resolved at least 30 cases relating to the business during the period. The FOS does not comment separately on the overall performance of individual businesses.

Taxation: Aviation

Angus MacNeil: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  if he will take steps to ensure that air tax exemptions for the Highlands and Islands are maintained in implementing his proposals to replace air passenger duty with a per-plane tax;
	(2)  what consultation his Department plans to undertake in the Highlands and Islands on his proposals to replace air passenger duty with a per-plane tax;
	(3)  whether he plans to review the military exemptions from air passenger duty;
	(4)  whether his proposals for a per-plane tax will apply to cargo flights operating within the Highlands and Islands region.

Justine Greening: The budget announced that the Government will explore changes to the aviation tax system, including switching from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty, which could encourage fuller planes. Major changes will be subject to consultation.

Driving: Safety

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent steps his Department has taken to reduce the number of people who drive  (a) while using a mobile telephone,  (b) without wearing a seat belt,  (c) while disqualified and  (d) without insurance; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Penning: The Department for Transport monitors the number of drivers who are convicted each year of these offences and works with the police and other Government Departments on the most effective enforcement of road traffic law. If the evidence suggests it is necessary, the Department will consider taking additional measures to achieve complaint driver behaviour.

Industrial Injuries

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many workplace injuries there were in each year from 1997 to 2009.

Chris Grayling: The best estimate of the overall number of injuries to workers comes from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Data is also available from notifications of workplace injuries that are made under RIDDOR-the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. This latter dataset only includes accidents that result in hospital admission or an absence from work of over three days and is subject to the drawback that there is considerable underreporting. However, it has a wider coverage than the LFS, as it covers not only workers but also members of the public that are injured in accidents connected to work activities. The following table provides estimates from the LFS for workers and the total number of RIDDOR injury notifications for the period 1996-97 to 2008-09.
	
		
			   Estimated incidence of self-reported workplace injuries from the LFS  Total count of RIDDOR injuries to workers and members of the public 
			 1996-97 (1)- 195,236 
			 1997-98 (1)- 195,055 
			 1998-99 (1)- 186,619 
			 1999-2000 1,051,000 191,143 
			 2000-01 1,058,000 184,546 
			 2001-02 1,007,000 174,990 
			 2002-03 1,026,000 171,743 
			 2003-04 949,000 178,392 
			 2004-05 880,000 169,533 
			 2005-06 833,000 166,971 
			 2006-07 851,000 163,972 
			 2007-08 817,000 159,712 
			 2008-09 726,000 *157,835 
			 (1) Comparable data is not available from the LFS for the 1996-97 to 1998-99.  Note: The annual basis of RIDDOR recording is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March. Data for 2008-09 is provisional, denoted by '*'.  Source: Labour Force Survey and RIDDOR

Industrial Injuries

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many workers incurred a workplace injury in each year from 1997 to 2009.

Chris Grayling: The best estimate of the overall number of injuries to workers comes from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Data is also available from notifications of workplace injuries that are made under RIDDOR-the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. This latter dataset only includes accidents that result in hospital admission or an absence from work of over three days and is subject to the drawback that there is considerable underreporting. The following table provides the figures from the LFS and RIDDOR regarding injuries to workers for the period 1996-97 to 2008-09.
	
		
			   Estimated incidence of self-reported workplace injuries from the LFS  Total count of RIDDOR injuries to workers 
			 1996-97 (1)- 159,175 
			 1997-98 (1)- 166,049 
			 1998-99 (1)- 162,450 
			 1999-2000 1,051,000 165,648 
			 2000-01 1,058,000 163,266 
			 2001-02 1,007,000 159,763 
			 2002-03 1,026,000 158,554 
			 2003-04 949,000 164,339 
			 2004-05 880,000 154,847 
			 2005-06 833,000 150,702 
			 2006-07 851,000 145,784 
			 2007-08 817,000 140,797 
			 2008-09 726,000 *134,094 
			 (1) Comparable data is not available from the LFS for the early part of the time period, 1996-97 to 1998-99.  Note: The annual basis of RIDDOR recording is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March. Data for 2008-09 is provisional, denoted by '*'  Source: Labour Force Survey and RIDDOR

Merchant Shipping

Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he last discussed the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010 with the Secretary of State for Transport.

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport made a written ministerial statement on 8 July 2010,  Official Report, column 14WS, confirming that the Government are in no doubt that ship-to-ship transfers require some form of regulation because of their potential damage to the UK's seas and coasts. However, given the concerns expressed by industry about some aspects of the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010, the Government have decided to defer their entry into force while a review is conducted.

Defence

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has set a timetable for receiving contributions to the Strategic Defence and Security Review from  (a) members of the public and  (b) representative organisations.

Oliver Letwin: I have been asked to reply.
	Government have already begun engaging with key partners and representative organisations on the Strategic Defence and Security Review, and will be providing individual members of the armed forces and their families with the opportunity to contribute. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the noble Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 7 July 2010,  Official Report, House of Lords, column WA 48. The Government expects to publish a National Security Strategy and the outcomes of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in the autumn, in coordination with the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). Contributions and ideas from members of the public and representative organisations and others are welcome at any time during this process.

Departmental ICT

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the original estimated cost was of the Defence Information Infrastructure project; and what his most recent estimate is of the cost of that project.

Peter Luff: The current estimate of the whole Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) Programme is around £7.1 billion; this figure was reported by the NAO in their Value for Money Report published 4 July 2008. This figure includes two future-and not on contract-increments for DII Deployed Restricted and the second tranche of DII Top Secret and also includes other separately funded programmes, which are outside of DII but on which DII depends.
	An earlier estimate of £5.854 billion was calculated at contract let as the cost to deploy DII to permanent land sites only. This estimate did not include monies for DII Deployed and Top Secret as their capability and scope were not fully mature at that time.
	Due to the changing shape of the Defence landscape, which will be informed by the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the current £7.1 billion estimate may need to be revisited once the review is completed.

Agriculture: Research

Michael Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research projects on  (a) soil science,  (b) traditional plant breeding,  (c) marker-assisted plant breeding,  (d) crop agronomy,  (e) plant physiology,  (f) plant pathology,  (g) agricultural botany,  (h) environmental microbiology,  (i) weed science,  (j) entomology,  (k) crop irrigation,  (l) nitrogen fixation,  (m) soil phosphorous,  (n) soil erosion,  (o) pollinating insects and  (p) integrated pest management her Department has funded since 1997; what the (i) research topic, (ii) start date, (iii) cost and (iv) project code was of each such project; who the main contractor was in each case; and which such projects have been completed to date.

Richard Benyon: Data taken from the Science Information System, used to store data on all of DEFRA's research and development projects, has been placed in the House Library.
	Each project is assigned keywords, which is how the list was generated.
	The results using these keywords is as closely matched as possible but due to the design of the system it is not possible to extract the data precisely as requested.

Agriculture: Research

Michael Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research projects on  (a) the sources and quantity of greenhouse gases,  (b) water pollution and  (c) air pollution arising from agricultural activity her Department has funded since 1997; what the (i) research topic, (ii) start date, (iii) cost and (iv) project code was of each such project; who the main contractor was in each case; and which such projects have been completed to date.

Richard Benyon: Data taken from the science information system, used to store data on all of DEFRA's research and development projects, has been placed in the House Library.
	Each project is assigned certain appropriate keywords, which is how the list was generated.
	The results are as closely matched as possible but due to the design of the system it is not possible to extract the data precisely as requested.

Air Pollution

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance her Department offers to local authorities for the purpose of managing air quality management areas.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA supports local authorities in a number of ways, most specifically through the provision of guidance.
	Guidance is intended to ensure consistency of approach in meeting Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) duties and to provide practice guidance on preparing action plans, consulting stakeholders and developing measures, including cost benefit appraisals. We provide technical, policy and practice guidance on local air quality management and in measures to improve air quality.
	All our guidance on air quality can be found at:
	www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/local/guidance/index.htm
	A support package, including a helpdesk, emissions tools and case studies, is also
	available at:
	www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/local/support/index.htm
	An air quality grant is also available, currently £2.3 million per year, to support statutory duties on LAQM, and help support (running costs) for monitoring, emissions inventories, dispersion modelling and action planning.
	Since introduction, DEFRA has distributed grant funding of £41 million to English local authorities.

Corruption

Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will place a copy of the Overseas Corruption Assessment drawn up by the City of London Police Overseas Anti-Corruption Unit in the Library.

Nick Herbert: The report in question is a police authored document and we do not therefore propose to lay a copy in the House Library. The City of London police would however be happy to supply a copy to the right hon. Member or to brief him privately on the content.

Crime Prevention

Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department plans to proceed with the Not in My Neighbourhood week scheme in  (a) 2010 and  (b) future years.

Nick Herbert: Not in My Neighbourhood Week will not take place in 2010. Plans for future years are under review

Demonstrations: Parliament Square

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  if she will take steps to ensure that Parliament Square is kept free of demonstrators on parliamentary sitting days; what recent representations she has received on this issue; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  if she will commission a report from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis on the policing of the demonstration held in Parliament Square on 2 July 2010; and if she will make a statement.

Nick Herbert: We are reviewing the law governing protests in and around Parliament Square.
	The Government will continue its discussions with the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police, the Speaker and other interested parties on how to support peaceful protest while preventing criminal activity and securing enjoyment and use of the Square for all.
	The responsibility for managing Parliament Square Garden rests with the Greater London Authority (GLA) under the GLA Act 1999. The Mayor of London has taken action in the High Court to deal with the current encampment on Parliament Square Garden. This matter remains before the courts.

Departmental Buildings

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many buildings her Department occupies in  (a) London and  (b) the UK.

Nick Herbert: The Department excluding its executive agencies mainly occupies one building in central London and has minor occupations in three others. It occupies 12 others outside London. Proposals to vacate buildings are under consideration.

Hillsborough Stadium: Disclosure of Information

Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date she expects the first documents relating to the Hillsborough disaster to be released by relevant Government departments.

Nick Herbert: holding answer 8 July 2010
	The Hillsborough Independent Panel is overseeing the process for maximum public disclosure of documents relating to the Hillsborough stadium disaster. Government Departments are already working on the arrangements for identifying, cataloguing and reviewing these records.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met recently with the Bishop of Liverpool in his capacity as chair of the independent panel and has given personal backing to the project.

Immigration

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were given leave to enter the UK under the Post-Study Route of Tier One of the points-based immigration system in each month since its introduction.

Damian Green: holding answer 12 July 2010
	The number of people given leave to enter the UK under the post-study route of tier 1 of the points-based immigration system is given in the following table:
	
		
			  Post-study route tier 1 
			   Endorsement  
			   Tier 1 (post study) main applicant  Tier 1 (post study) partner  Tier 1 (post study) child  Grand total 
			 April 2008 0 0 - 0 
			 May 2008 0 0 0 0 
			 June 2008 0 0 - 0 
			 July 2008 47 3 0 50 
			 August 2008 84 7 3 94 
			 September 2008 110 16 3 129 
			 October 2008 134 25 6 165 
			 November 2008 178 65 12 255 
			 December 2008 206 65 24 295 
			  
			 January 2009 319 101 27 447 
			 February 2009 375 133 38 546 
			 March 2009 372 127 39 538 
			 April 2009 298 122 31 451 
			 May 2009 338 187 71 596 
			 June 2009 378 172 43 593 
			 July 2009 299 161 46 506 
			 August 2009 355 106 37 498 
			 September 2009 395 141 38 574 
			 October 2009 422 222 89 733 
			 November 2009 379 239 86 704 
			 December 2009 314 183 41 538 
			  
			 January 2010 415 160 50 625 
			 February 2010 389 188 50 627 
			 March 2010 487 245 72 804 
			  
			 Grand total 6,294 2,668 806 9,768 
		
	
	The data in this table are based on management information. They are provisional and subject to change.

Departmental Electronic Equipment

Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agency and non-departmental public bodies spent on televisions in each year since 1997.

John Penrose: Between financial years 2005-06 and 2009-10, the following amounts were spent on televisions at this Department:
	
		
			  Expenditure on TVs 
			  £ 
			 2005-06 (1)3,231 
			 2006-07 2,153 
			 2007-08 7,023 
			 2008-09 1,295 
			 2009-10 1,796 
			 (1) This amount includes a flat screen television, stand, protective screen and case. It is not possible to separate the cost of each item.  Note: Information prior to 2005-06 is not available. 
		
	
	Information on the amount spent by the DCMS agency and arm's length bodies is held by them and could be provided only at disproportionate cost

Departmental Photographs

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport how much his Department has spent on official photographs of Ministers since the formation of the present administration.

John Penrose: In the first week of the current administration's tenure, the Department commissioned a photographer to take official photographs of new Ministers and a range of additional images for use on the DCMS website and in communication materials, at a cost of £600.
	We keep photography costs to a minimum and wherever possible departmental staff take photographs at no cost, or we use cost-free images.

Departmental Travel

Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport how much his  (a) Department and  (b) its agency and non-departmental public bodies spent on travel for employees in each year since 1997.

John Penrose: All official travel is undertaken in accordance with rules set out in the Department's Travel and Subsistence guidance and is consistent with the Civil Service Management Code.
	The following table outlines this department's expenditure on travel since 1997:
	
		
			  Financial Year  Total (£) 
			 2009-10 260,269 
			 2008-09 380,209 
			 2007-08 414,290 
			 2006-07 491,452 
			 2005-06 580,749 
			 2004-05 446,211 
			 2003-04 429,849 
			 2002-03 444,245 
			 2001-02 375,368 
			 2000-01 335,577 
			 1999-2000 335,068 
			 1998-97 232,160 
			 1997-98 242,937 
		
	
	Information on the amount spent by the DCMS agency and arm's length bodies is held by them and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Departmental Training

Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much  (a) his Department and its predecessors and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on employee awaydays in each year since 1997.

Bob Neill: Details of employee away days are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Fire Services: Finance

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what proportion of the income of each fire and rescue authority in England was from  (a) central Government grant,  (b) council tax and  (c) other sources in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Bob Neill: The proportion of the income from central government grant, council tax and other sources for each Fire and Rescue Authority in England in 2008-09 is in the following tabled.
	
		
			  Percentage 
			   Central government grant  Council tax  Other sources 
			 Greater Manchester Fire and CD Authority 64.4 34.0 1.6 
			 Merseyside Fire and CD Authority 62.0 34.4 3.7 
			 South Yorkshire Fire and CD Authority 60.8 36.1 3.0 
			 Tyne and Wear Fire and CD Authority 59.4 35.4 5.1 
			 West Midlands Fire and CD Authority 66.6 29.7 3.7 
			 West Yorkshire Fire and CD Authority 62.9 36.3 0.7 
			 Avon Combined Fire Authority 56.0 42.5 1.5 
			 Bedfordshire Combined Fire Authority 40.4 57.2 2.4 
			 Berkshire Combined Fire Authority 47.0 51.8 1.2 
			 Buckinghamshire Combined Fire Authority 41.5 53.3 5.2 
			 Cambridgeshire Combined Fire Authority 47.5 51.0 1.5 
			 Cheshire Combined Fire Authority 43.1 55.4 1.5 
			 Cleveland Combined Fire Authority 67.7 30.2 2.1 
			 Derbyshire Combined Fire Authority 46.8 51.5 1.7 
			 Devon and Somerset Combined Fire Authority 47.8 48.6 3.6 
			 Dorset Combined Fire Authority 37.7 50.0 12.3 
			 Durham Combined Fire Authority 47.0 52.8 0.3 
			 East Sussex Combined Fire Authority 37.6 61.2 1.1 
			 Essex Combined Fire Authority 44.2 54.2 1.6 
			 Hampshire Combined Fire Authority 44.2 53.8 2.1 
			 Hereford and Worcester Combined Fire Authority 37.5 59.0 3.5 
			 Humberside Combined Fire Authority 53.9 44.1 1.9 
			 Kent Combined Fire Authority 42.1 52.9 5.0 
			 Lancashire Combined Fire Authority 53.8 44.3 1.9 
			 Leicestershire Combined Fire Authority 55.0 43.9 1.1 
			 North Yorkshire Combined Fire Authority 43.7 55.4 0.8 
			 Nottinghamshire Combined Fire Authority 49.0 45.0 6.0 
			 Shropshire Combined Fire Authority 37.1 59.6 3.3 
			 Staffordshire Combined Fire Authority 43.4 55.0 1.6 
			 Wiltshire Combined Fire Authority 39.9 58.5 1.6 
			  Source:  Communities and Local Government revenue outturn (RO) returns and capital outturn (CO) returns 
		
	
	Figures for the remaining 16 authorities responsible for fire services are not available as their revenue support grant is unhypothecated and it is therefore not possible to identify the fire service elements.
	The definition of central government grant used here is the sum of formula grant (revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates), specific grants inside Aggregate External Finance (AEF) (i.e. revenue grants paid for council's core services), specific and special revenue grants outside AEF (i.e. where funding is not for authorities' core services, but is passed to a third party, for example, rent allowances and rebates), area based grant (ABG) and expenditure financed by capital grants from central government.
	The definition of council tax used here includes council taxes financed from council tax benefit grant but excludes council taxes financed from local authority contributions to council tax benefit.
	'Other sources' is defined as sum of interest and investment income - external receipts and dividends, sales fees and charges and in-year capital receipts. This excludes 'other income' as reported by local authorities on the Revenue Outturn (RO) returns as this includes internal recharges, which distorts the comparative figures on income.

Fire Services: Standards

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent guidance his Department has issued to fire authorities on  (a) firefighter training,  (b) recording non-fatal injuries and  (c) equipment procurement.

Bob Neill: The most recent guidance issued for these areas by my Department to Fire and Rescue Authorities is as follows: training guidance relating to breathing apparatus published on 23 March 2009 and a training package on timber framed buildings, issued as part of a Fire and Rescue Service Circular (FRS 38/2009) on the 1 July 2009; and the National Procurement Strategy for the Fire and Rescue Service in England 2009-12, published on 7 August 2009. No guidance on recording non-fatal injuries has been issued since 2007.

Special Educational Needs

Chris Skidmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many statements on special educational need each local authority area has issued in each year since 1997.

Sarah Teather: Information on new statements of special educational needs issued by local authorities since 1997 is published on the DFE Research and Statistics Gateway in the following publications:
	For 1993-98, Table 9 of the Statistical Bulletin "Special Educational Needs in England: January 1999", available at:
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b000124/b12-1999.pdf
	For 1999-2001, Table 11 of the Statistical Bulletin "Special Educational Needs In England: January 2002", available at:
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b000367/index.shtml
	For, 2002-04, Table 16 of the Statistical First Release "Special Educational Needs in England January 2005", available at:
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000584/index.shtml
	For 2005-08, Table 19 of the Statistical First Release "DCSF: Special Educational Needs in England: January 2009", available at:
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000852/index.shtml
	Data on the number of new statements issued for the 2009 calendar year at local authority level is due to be published on 21 July 2010 as an addition to the Statistical First Release "Special Educational Needs in England: January 2010" at:
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000939/index.shtml

Special Educational Needs: Pupil Exclusions

Chris Skidmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many  (a) statemented and  (b) non-statemented pupils with special educational needs have been given (i) a fixed period exclusion and (ii) a permanent exclusion in each year since 1997.

Sarah Teather: Data on the special educational needs status of excluded pupils is collected at the time of exclusion. Information relating to the number of permanent exclusions by SEN status since 1997 is published in table 7 of the Statistical First Release published at
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000860/index.shtml
	Data on fixed period exclusions was collected for the first time in 2003/04; in 2005/06 it was collected for secondary schools only. The available information relating to the number of fixed period exclusions (not the number of pupils) by SEN status between 2003/04 and 2006/07 is published in table 8 of the Statistical First Release published at
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000793/index.shtml
	The number of fixed period exclusions by SEN status for 2007/08 is available in table 8a of the Statistical First Release published at:
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000860/index.shtml
	Some analysis has been carried out for 2007/08 on the number of excluded pupil enrolments, as shown in the table. A pupil's SEN status can change between periods of exclusion; therefore data relating to the SEN status of excluded pupil enrolments has been based on their SEN status at the time of their most recent fixed period or permanent exclusion. To carry out this analysis for further years would incur disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools( 1, 2, 3)  number and percentage of pupil enrolments receiving one or more fixed period exclusions or a permanent exclusion by special educational needs (SEN) England, 2007/08 (estimates)( 4) 
			   One or more fixed period exclusions  Permanent exclusion( 4) 
			   Number of pupil enrolments  Percentage of school population( 5)  Number of pupil enrolments  Percentage of school population( 5) 
			 Statement of SEN(6) 17,970 8.42 700 0.33 
			 SEN without a statement(6) 96,290 7.26 5,080 0.38 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Includes city technology colleges and academies (including all-through academies). (3) Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes general hospital schools. (4) Figures relating to permanent exclusions are estimates based on incomplete pupil-level data. (5) The number of pupil enrolments who received exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of all pupils (excluding dually registered pupils) by SEN, in January 2008. (6) Pupils' SEN status at the time of their most recent fixed period or permanent exclusion.  Note: Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.  Source: School Census

Centres for Disease Control

Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has for the future funding of Centres for Disease Control.

Stephen O'Brien: As a UK Government Department, we do not provide funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, United States. However, we work closely with them on a number of policy issues including polio eradication, malaria and tuberculosis.

Developing Countries: Forests

Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding his Department has allocated in respect of  (a) forestry programmes and  (b) reforestation projects in developing countries in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion of the UKs (i) international development budget and (ii) bilateral aid programme it represented in each case in each such year.

Andrew Mitchell: The Department for international Development's bilateral expenditure on forestry programmes and the proportion this expenditure represents of total UK development aid and DFID's bilateral aid programme, in each of the last 10 years, are in the following table. We are unable to separate spending on reforestation and funding on broader forest development or forest policy without incurring disproportionate cost.
	
		
			   DFID bilateral forestry (£ 000)  % of total UK development aid  % of total DFID bilateral 
			 1999-2000 25,211 0.8 1.9 
			 2000-01 23,373 0.7 1.7 
			 2001-02 25,831 0.7 1.7 
			 2002-03 19,985 0.5 1.1 
			 2003-04 20,074 0.4 1.0 
			 2004-05 15,778 0.3 0.7 
			 2005-06 1,518 0.2 0.6 
			 2006-07 15,620 0.2 0.6 
			 2007-08 7,352 0.1 0.2 
			 2008-09 21,881 0.3 0.7

Overseas Aid: Health Services

Iain Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he plans to publish his Department's 2009 health portfolio review.

Stephen O'Brien: The Department for international Development's health portfolio review will be published later this year and will be available at:
	www.dfid.gov.uk

Diabetes

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what data the Care Quality Commission  (a) collects and  (b) holds on the care of people with diabetes resident in adult social care homes;
	(2)  what data the Care Quality Commission  (a) collects and  (b) holds on the screening for diabetes of people resident in adult social care homes;
	(3)  what measures the Care Quality Commission uses to assess the quality of diabetes care for people with that condition who are resident in adult social care homes in England;
	(4)  on how many occasions  (a) the Care Quality Commission and  (b) the Commission for Social Care Inspection has reported on the quality of diabetes care in adult social care homes in each of the last five years;
	(5)  what recent assessment he has made of the quality of care delivered to people with diabetes in care homes.

Paul Burstow: The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England and is therefore responsible for assuring the safety and quality of care in care homes.
	CQC has provided the following information about its current practices.
	Under the current framework, set by the Care Standards Act 2000, CQC does not collect information about the specific health needs of residents, or about the residents themselves. Diabetes is not a primary reason for needing admission to a home so it is not part of the 'client group' data that CQC does collect. In addition, care homes are not required to register as specialist providers of diabetes care.
	The same approach applies in terms of screening. No data is specifically collected on diabetes, although providers of residential care are expected to ensure that people have access to community health care services in the same way as people living in their own homes.
	Under the new registration framework for health and social care, which will be introduced on 1 October for independent healthcare and adult social care providers (including providers of care homes), all providers of regulated activities have to register with the Commission and meet a set of 16 registration requirements of essential levels of safety and quality.
	In relation to diabetes care, the registration requirements include the following: care and welfare of service users, management of medicines, and meeting nutritional needs.
	The CQC is responsible for ensuring that providers of regulated activities meet the registration requirements. The Commission has issued its Guidance about Compliance, which explains in more detail about how providers can comply with them.
	Neither CQC nor its predecessor, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, have undertaken or published any special studies relating to diabetes care in care homes.

Diabetes

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the proportion of residents of care homes who have  (a) diagnosed and  (b) undiagnosed diabetes.

Paul Burstow: The information requested is not collected centrally. The Department has commissioned The Institute of Diabetes for Older People to undertake a national initiative to enhance the quality of diabetes care for all older people in the United Kingdom. Part of this work involves developing an audit/quality tool to assess diabetes care within residential and nursing homes. A pilot assessment of a tool is going on in Herefordshire currently to be completed by October 2010. A larger National audit is being planned for 2011.

Emergency Calls

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system for locating the source of medical emergency calls made from rural areas.

Simon Burns: The management of incoming 999 emergency calls are for NHS ambulance services to manage locally and no formal assessment has been made centrally. However, where a 999 call is made (either from a landline or mobile phone), location information (the address for calls from a landline and an approximate area for calls from a mobile phone) is provided to the ambulance service by the communications provider. This information is available to all emergency controls either by automatic data transfer or verbally on request. Trusts have been encouraged to invest in the technology that enables automatic data transfer.

EC Law

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will estimate the cost to his Department of compliance with regulations arising from EU obligations in the last 12 months.

Gregory Barker: Like all employers, Government Departments have to act in accordance with a wide variety of regulation ranging from health and safety to employment, but it is not standard accounting practice to distinguish regulatory compliance costs from overall running costs, whether of EU origin or domestic.
	Given the lack of off-the-shelf figures, producing such an estimate on a department-by-department basis would be a major undertaking, and would involve disproportionate expenditure. By way of comparison, the Administrative Burdens Measurement Exercise, which provided an indicative estimate of administrative burdens across the UK economy, cost in excess of £10 million to undertake.

Utilities: Housing

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the level of the average household  (a) gas and  (b) electricity bill in (i) 1997 and (ii) the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Charles Hendry: For an average consumer using 18,000 kWh of gas per year and paying by standard credit, the average annual domestic gas bill in Great Britain was £328 in 1997 and £717 in 2009, the latest year for which the figures are available. Adjusting for the effects of inflation, in real terms (using 2005 prices) equivalent bills were £393 in 1997 and £649 in 2009.
	For an average consumer using 3,300 kWh of electricity per year and paying by standard credit, the average annual domestic electricity bill in the UK was £285 in 1997 and £461 in 2009. Adjusting for the effects of inflation, in real terms (using 2005 prices) equivalent bills were £342 in 1997 and £417 in 2009.
	All of this information is available in chapter 2 of the Department of Energy and Climate Change's publication 'Quarterly Energy Prices', which can be found on the DECC website at:
	http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/prices/prices.aspx
	and in the Libraries of the House.

Electoral Systems: Referendums

Jack Straw: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the costs of holding a referendum on the alternative vote system.

Thomas Docherty: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate his Department has made of the cost to Government departments of administering the proposed referendum on the alternative vote system.

David Crausby: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated cost to the public purse will be of the referendum on the alternative vote.

Mark Harper: Many of the cost elements of running the proposed referendum on the alternative vote system will be similar to those for a general election. The previous Government estimated the cost for conduct elements of the 2010 general election in Great Britain at £82.1 million,  Official Report, 30 March 2010, column 1079W. Based on this, and our modelling for the 2009 European and 2010 general elections, it can be estimated that the cost of conduct elements for the proposed referendum will be similar. We have made initial assumptions about the conduct costs of a referendum were it not to be combined with any other polls and on that basis we currently estimate a saving of £17 million on the conduct costs of the referendum through combination.
	Additionally, as indicated in the written answer by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) of 6 July,  Official Report, column 144W, the Electoral Commission has estimated that the cost of its own activities in relation to the referendum at £9.3 million.
	Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, designated lead campaign organisations are entitled to send a referendum address post free, similar to the entitlement in place for candidates at general elections. The cost of funding this entitlement does not form part of the costs of the conduct of the poll. The Government are considering how this entitlement will apply at the referendum on the alternative vote.

Electoral Systems: Reform

Thomas Docherty: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on the timing of the proposed referendum on the alternative vote system.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government's proposals for a referendum on the alternative vote, on 5 July 2010,  Official Report, column 23-25. My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have had discussions with the Commission on a number of matters.

European Communities Act 1972

Philip Hollobone: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations he has received under the Your Freedom initiative on repeal of the European Communities Act 1972.

Nicholas Clegg: Since launching the "Your Freedom" online engagement on 1 July, we have had high response levels.
	After just seven days we had received 9,796 ideas and 51,957 comments. Within the range of ideas received 59 relate to the European Communities Act (1972).

General Elections

William Bain: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he has  (a) sought and  (b) received from the Electoral Commission on the simultaneous holding of the next general election with elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales on 7 May 2015.

Mark Harper: The Government intend to consult a range of stakeholders in relation to their proposal to introduce fixed-term parliaments.

Broadband

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking to expand the provision of superfast broadband.

Edward Vaizey: As stated in the coalition's joint programme for Government, we will seek to introduce superfast broadband across the country. On 8 June, the Secretary of State for Culture, the Olympics, Media and Sport set out the Government's plans for ensuring the UK has the best superfast broadband network in Europe by the end of the Parliament.
	These plans include enabling access to existing infrastructure to reduce the cost of deployment, and we will be launching a discussion document on how best to do this on 15 July. Ofcom are at the same time taking forward work looking at the potential for other operators to use BT's existing infrastructure. Further, the Secretary of State has proposed three market testing projects for superfast broadband in rural areas, to be paid for with money left over from the Digital TV switchover helpscheme. The venues for these projects are currently under consideration.

Broadband: Rural Areas

Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that rural areas have access to high speed broadband; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Vaizey: holding answer 13 July 2010
	As stated in the Coalition's joint programme for Government, we will seek to introduce superfast broadband in remote areas at the same time as in more populated areas. On 8 June, the Secretary of State for Culture, the Olympics, Media and Sport set out the Government's plans for ensuring the UK has the best superfast broadband network in Europe by the end of the Parliament.
	These plans include enabling access to existing infrastructure to reduce the cost of deployment, and we will be launching a discussion document on how best to do this on 15 July. Further, the Secretary of State has proposed three market testing projects for superfast broadband in rural areas, to be paid for with money left over from the Digital TV switchover helpscheme. The venues for these projects are currently under consideration.

Radio Frequencies

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills 
	(1)  what steps he is taking to ensure that those who own programme making and special events equipment due to be rendered redundant as a result of the clearance of the 600 MHz and 800 MHz spectrum are not left any worse off as a result of the changes;
	(2)  on what terms the Government will provide compensation to those in the programme making and special events sector whose wireless equipment will be rendered redundant as a consequence of the clearance and sale of the digital dividend spectrum.

Edward Vaizey: Programme Making and Special Events (PMSE) users were given notice in 2005 by Ofcom that they would have to vacate channels 31-37 (600 MHz spectrum) and 63-68 (800 MHz spectrum) by 2012, and in 2007 that channels 61-62 (800 MHz spectrum) would no longer be available for use. Ofcom consider this an acceptable period of notice for users to react and are not obliged to offer compensation or to find alternative spectrum. However, Ofcom have said that most of the 32 channels retained for digital terrestrial television after Digital Switchover in the 600 MHz band will still be available on an interleaved basis for PMSE and it is confident there will be enough spectrum in individual locations to more than satisfy historic peak demand.
	Ofcom will be able to say more about precise frequencies in specific locations later this year, following the outcome of negotiations with neighbouring countries.
	After Ofcom's 2005 statement, users had legitimately been expecting to use channel 69 (in the 800 MHz spectrum) for PMSE until 2018, and therefore as Government agreed with a proposal to change the use of this channel, Government will ensure PMSE users will be compensated for being moved from channel 69.
	This Government are now considering options on the appropriate level of compensation, taking into account how we can best ensure users are neither better nor worse off, what sort of precedent a compensation scheme would set, and whether it would be lawful. Equally important, in particular in the current financial climate, is the need to appropriately safeguard and make efficient use of taxpayers' money. A decision will be taken as soon as possible.

Bailiffs: Misconduct

Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many court orders were issued to bailiffs for execution in each of the last five years; and how many complaints  (a) his Department and  (b) HM Courts Service has received alleging misuse by bailiffs of powers granted by the courts to execute such orders in each such year.

Jonathan Djanogly: Court orders for execution by bailiffs are issued in both the county court and the magistrates court.
	All warrants issued by the county court are executed by in house bailiffs and the details of the orders issued are in the following table.
	
		
			  Calendar year  Execution( 1)  Delivery( 2)  Possession( 3)  Committal( 4) 
			 2005 341,097 2,382 131,510 1,844 
			 2006 340,078 2,121 144,990 1,757 
			 2007 310,178 2,359 146,120 1,647 
			 2008 294,823 2,500 159,337 1,353 
			 2009 236,293 2,307 139,131 1,103 
			 (1) Allows saleable items owned by the debtor to be sold unless the amount due under the warrant is paid. (2) For the return of goods or items. (3) For the repossession of property. (4) For enforcing an order where the penalty for failing to comply is imprisonment. It authorises the bailiff to arrest and deliver the person to prison or the court. 
		
	
	Warrants issued by the magistrates courts are executed by both in house Civilian Enforcement Officers (CEOs), where HMCS employ them, and by private Enforcement Agents under contract to HMCS (AEAs).
	The following table gives details of the warrants issued to these two categories. This data is only available from 2006-07 onwards and the final figures for 2009-10 are not yet available.
	
		
			  Financial year  Issued to AEAs( 1)  Issued to CEOs( 2) 
			 2006-07 721,000 598,000 
			 2007-08 648,000 606,000 
			 2008-09 613,000 484,000 
			 (1) Covers warrants, for HMCS areas, for distress and clamping, which allows saleable items owned by the debtor to be sold unless the amount due under the warrant is paid and warrants for arrest for non payment of financial orders or non compliance with Community Penalty orders for HMCS areas where CEOs are not employed. (2) Covers warrants for arrest for non payment of financial orders or non compliance with Community Penalty orders. 
		
	
	As regards complaints alleging misuse by bailiffs of powers granted by the court. HMCS has a complaint recording system which requires staff to record customer dissatisfaction. However it does not specifically collect data about alleged misuse of bailiff powers but in a more general format of complaints about the way a bailiff has handled a warrant.
	The following table indicates the number of such complaints that have been received.
	
		
			  Financial year  County Court warrants  Magistrates warrants 
			 2006-07 369 154 
			 2007-08 442 155 
			 2008-09 475 135 
			 2009-10 423 249 
		
	
	The actual number of these complaints that specifically alleged misuse of powers could be provided only at disproportionate cost as it would require a manual search of the individual complaint files.

Departmental Expenditure

Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on employee awaydays in each year since its inception;
	(2)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies has spent on information and communication technology in each year since its inception;
	(3)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on office refurbishment in each year since its inception;
	(4)  how much his  (a) Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on travel for employees in each year since 1997;
	(5)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on hospitality in each year since its inception;
	(6)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on stationery in each year since its inception;
	(7)  how much his  (a) Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on logo design in each year since its inception;
	(8)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on televisions in each year since its inception;
	(9)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on legal advice in each year since its inception;
	(10)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on (i) electricity, (ii) water, (iii) heating and (iv) telephone services in each year since its inception;
	(11)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on website design in each year since its inception;
	(12)  how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on light bulbs in each year since its inception;
	(13)  how much his  (a) Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on employee training since its inception.

Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice has four executive agencies and sponsors nine executive non-departmental public bodies plus 35 probation trusts, most operate separate accounting systems and processes. The information requested is currently being collated and verified. I will write to the hon. Member once this process is complete, which will hopefully be before the House rises for the summer recess.

Departmental Regulation

David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which of his Department's regulations are under review; and if he will make a statement.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Government are currently completing a review of regulatory measures planned for introduction by the previous Government over the coming year and listed in The Forward Regulatory Programme published March 2010
	http://www.bis.gov.uk/bre
	The purpose of the Forward Regulatory Programme is to improve the management and scrutiny of new regulations as they are developed to reduce burdens on businesses. The programme only includes those regulations that have an impact on the private and third sectors.
	These regulations will not be implemented until they have been reviewed and re-agreed by the Reducing Regulation Cabinet Committee.
	The MoJ will be considering suggestions made through the 'Your Freedom' exercise which is currently asking the public for their ideas to reduce pointless regulation and unnecessary bureaucracy.
	http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/1atest-news/2010/07/your-freedom-52709

Departmental Security

Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on security in each year since its inception.

Kenneth Clarke: Expenditure on security across the Ministry of Justices' estate covers a wide array of items, including guarding contracts, physical barriers, CCTV, specialist lighting, staff training, information security and IT encryption, as well as the cost of security teams.
	Budgets are devolved to the Ministry's agencies and non-departmental public bodies who then apply them as required. Funding for security is not recorded separately. To extract security costs from the general planned maintenance budget and other provisions in the many and disparate MoJ establishments in England and Wales would incur a disproportionate cost to collate.

Departmental Travel

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which  (a) Ministers and  (b) officials in his Department have been driven by the Government Car Service since the Government took office; and how much each of these persons has received in expenses for use of taxis, buses and underground trains in that period.

Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State, the Minister of State for Justice (MOJ) and the two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at the Ministry of Justice currently have use of an allocated ministerial car during the week.
	The Home Office provides the arrangements in relation to the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice, who also has ministerial responsibilities at the Ministry of Justice.
	The number of officials who have been driven by the Government Car Service since this Government took office is not held centrally and could be provided only by contacting every division within MOJ at a disproportionate cost.
	MOJ staff, including Ministers and the Department's two special advisers have access to the use of a taxi ordered through departmental taxi accounts or to a car ordered through the Government Car and Despatch Agency. Both the taxi account and the car and despatch agency may only be used in exceptional circumstances which may include:
	by the time you cease work either public transport is not available for your journey from work to home or it would not be reasonable to expect you to use public transport
	or when heavy baggage has to be transported for work-related reasons.
	Ministerial and staff business travel is procured and paid for by the Department prior to travel. Where ministers and staff have personally paid for business travel; they may be reimbursed by submitting a travel and subsistence claim to the Department. Since the Government took office up to and including 8 July, there have been no such claims made by Ministers or their private office staff. Information is not held centrally for staff in the wider MOJ and could be provided only by examining individual expense claims at a disproportionate cost. However, we are looking at ways in which this information will be centrally recorded in the future.
	The new Ministerial Code, published on 21 May 2010, contains changes that affect Ministerial entitlement to travel by Government car. It states that:
	"the number of Ministers with allocated cars and drivers will be kept to a minimum, taking into account security and other relevant considerations. Other Ministers will be entitled to use cars from the Government Car Service Pool as needed."
	The Department for Transport and its Government Car and Despatch Agency are working with Departments to effect the transition to the new arrangements.
	The Ministerial Code is available on the Cabinet Office website.

Location

John Mann: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for what reasons officials working for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority are working in central London; what consideration was given to locating them in a less expensive part of the country; and if he will make a statement.

Charles Walker: IPSA advises me that the merits of basing IPSA in a location other than Westminster were considered early in IPSA's implementation phase. It was concluded that the most appropriate location for IPSA's permanent home was central London, within a reasonable distance of the Palace of Westminster. This decision was taken to minimise the risk of disruption during the handover period between the old system administered by the House of Commons and IPSA's new system, not least in respect of the potential impact on those staff transferring from the House of Commons to IPSA.

Manpower

David Anderson: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority what the policy of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is on provision of additional staff resources for hon. Members to assist with the processing of claims for allowance payments.

Charles Walker: IPSA does not provide additional staff resources specifically to assist with the processing of claims under the MPs' expenses scheme. If MPs are unable to remain within their staffing budget for the current financial year, they can apply to IPSA for support from the contingency fund. All such applications will be considered on a case by case basis.

Members: Allowances

Ann McKechin: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority what procedures the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will adopt to reimburse hon. Members for London Area Living Allowance for the period between the date of the General Election and the date on which the initial claim for that allowance was submitted.

Charles Walker: The MPs' expenses scheme does not allow the London Area Living Payment to be paid in respect of any period before IPSA is notified that an MP intends to claim it. Consequently, IPSA is not able to backdate any such claims to the date of the general election.

Members: Allowances

David Anderson: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority whether the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has assessed the merits of introducing a paper-based system for claiming allowance payments.

Charles Walker: IPSA has advised me that the merits of introducing a paper-based system for claiming expenses were considered during the start-up phase of IPSA. It was concluded that in line with current expectations of IT-led delivery within the public sector, it would be inappropriate to design a new expenses process which was not based at least in part on an IT-led solution.
	IPSA remains of the view that an IT-led, rather than paper-based, system is most appropriate. Using an IT-led solution allows IPSA to achieve a high level of transparency more easily and cheaply than an equivalent manual approach. It will also allow any future changes to processes to be more easily implemented.

Members: Rail Travel

Ann McKechin: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority what the policy of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is on reimbursement of hon. Members for first class rail travel on sleeper services in circumstances where single berths are not available on such services at fares equal to or less than the standard open ticket tariff  (a) with and  (b) without a supplement.

Charles Walker: The MPs' expenses scheme only allows the costs of economy/standard class tickets or the equivalent to be reimbursed. MPs travelling on sleeper train services are additionally entitled to claim for sleeper supplements, for either a single occupancy berth or a share of a twin occupancy berth. Both companies which provide sleeper train services within the UK will allow travellers to purchase either berth as a supplement to a standard class ticket.
	The total cost of the ticket plus sleeper supplement may be higher than the price of a standard open ticket. Therefore, as the guidance to the scheme states at paragraph 7.7, the total cost will be reimbursed in these cases.
	IPSA believes that this will allow Members to obtain a single berth on all sleeper services. Where this is not the case, IPSA would welcome evidence from Members.